The CSEA Issue
In a post from a couple of months ago (D11 Board considering making a Decision!!!Thursday, February 22, 2007), I "quoted" a union spokesperson, Lori Watson, as refusing to answer questions about her Colorado Springs Education Association labor union because it was a "private organization." Despite the fact that the labor union is involved in every aspect of governing the public D11 school district, union leaders believe that they are allowed to operate in the dark.
In today's Gazette, in an article on the current CSEA spat involving a possible misuse or theft of public funds, Irma Valerio, labor union chief, refused to answer reporter Brian Newsome's questions about the issue. This is how the Gazette portrayed her response to Newsome:
"Valerio declined to discuss how the CSEA is handling the situation, noting it is a private organization and the board of directors is 'dealing with it.' "
According to a CSEA source, as of tonight, Valerio was forced to resign as president of the CSEA by other members of the CSEA and the CEA. If there is solid evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Valerio, kudos to her colleagues for doing the right thing.
The D11 administration may annouce the results of their investigation as early as Wednesday, May 16th.
I posted a response from someone "in-the-know" in the response section of my first article on this topic. Go there to see the exact reply. The reply sets the record straight and provides much more information than did my initial entry and more information than the Gazette reported.
Now for corrections to my initial blog entry on the topic. Some were critical because my entry was not "exactly correct." Based on today's article and the more knowledgeable source, the dollar amount in question is $1,000 instead of $2,000. The funds in question dealt with a teacher training program called PROGRAD, and this program was disbanded. Grow Your Own was not in question. My article talked only of Valerio's involvement in the alleged theft, while the Gazette article mentioned that several people were being investigated. Tom Watson, who is on the union executive board, also resigned from the board effective July 1st. Two other board members, Brian Kachel and Scott Noller, were also asked to resign, but they refused. As you will read in the source's response, there may possibly be a recall attempt against these two members. The issue of embezzlement is supposedly not an issue at all. My apologies to all involved for using that term if that is the case.
If you read the reply to my first entry on the topic, you will see that the CSEA member's opinion is that Valerio stepped down and acted, overall, with more class and style than than did the others.
I would like to thank "Anonymous" for providing the correct details on this case.
In today's Gazette, in an article on the current CSEA spat involving a possible misuse or theft of public funds, Irma Valerio, labor union chief, refused to answer reporter Brian Newsome's questions about the issue. This is how the Gazette portrayed her response to Newsome:
"Valerio declined to discuss how the CSEA is handling the situation, noting it is a private organization and the board of directors is 'dealing with it.' "
According to a CSEA source, as of tonight, Valerio was forced to resign as president of the CSEA by other members of the CSEA and the CEA. If there is solid evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Valerio, kudos to her colleagues for doing the right thing.
The D11 administration may annouce the results of their investigation as early as Wednesday, May 16th.
I posted a response from someone "in-the-know" in the response section of my first article on this topic. Go there to see the exact reply. The reply sets the record straight and provides much more information than did my initial entry and more information than the Gazette reported.
Now for corrections to my initial blog entry on the topic. Some were critical because my entry was not "exactly correct." Based on today's article and the more knowledgeable source, the dollar amount in question is $1,000 instead of $2,000. The funds in question dealt with a teacher training program called PROGRAD, and this program was disbanded. Grow Your Own was not in question. My article talked only of Valerio's involvement in the alleged theft, while the Gazette article mentioned that several people were being investigated. Tom Watson, who is on the union executive board, also resigned from the board effective July 1st. Two other board members, Brian Kachel and Scott Noller, were also asked to resign, but they refused. As you will read in the source's response, there may possibly be a recall attempt against these two members. The issue of embezzlement is supposedly not an issue at all. My apologies to all involved for using that term if that is the case.
If you read the reply to my first entry on the topic, you will see that the CSEA member's opinion is that Valerio stepped down and acted, overall, with more class and style than than did the others.
I would like to thank "Anonymous" for providing the correct details on this case.
posted by Craig Cox | 8:50 PM
5 Comments:
I don't know what you quoted on the 22nd of Feb. because I never said any of those things, not to you or anyone else. But never let the truth get in the way of a good story!
In case you are interested in the facts,here's the real story of last night: Tom resigned last night because Irma demanded his resignation before she would step down. I support his decision to step down in an attempt to allow the association to move past personal issues. Tom has NEVER received PROGRAD funds and was not one of the handful of teachers quoted in the paper. The handful of teachers being investigated were those who submitted expenses to PROGRAD for Association related events. It's not the end of the world and the money has been returned to the district. Since PROGRAD was teacher perameter money (money paid to teachers as part of their district package of benefits) they felt that they were entitled to apply as teachers. It was debatable whether they should or not,and the board voted that they shouldn't when this problem was discovered.
I have not avoided correcting the record with you because I feel that the association is above your scrutiny in any way. I waited until the board had done what was needed. There will always be more to do.
There are those who find comfort in airing their venom through your media. It's their choice and I've used it myself. It was our choice to post when we disagreed and the facts were made up. You have given your opinions and frankly they don't bother me one way or another unless they are outright lies.
It doesn't matter to me whether you agree or disagree with the association, Mr. Cox. We serve our members (not you) and they will decide if they need us or not. Despite the problems facing us at this time, we will forge ahead and do what is ultimately best for our teachers, because the teachers do what is best for our students. Your ridicule causes us to reflect on our actions and to evaluate our motivation and results. We welcome your criticism and we know we can count on it.
I chose to teach because of children. They will be the future and it's a privilidge to guide them on their path and to be a part of their growth in that direction. I applaud those that give their personal time and efforts to assisting teachers in this endeavor. Politics is a necessary evil of that process, and in politics there are always opposing sides. We've won some and we've lost some over the years, and this event is a major loss for this unit. I believe we will eventually be better because of it, however. Teachers adapt easily and want what is best.
Lori,
The Feb 22 article of which I spoke was a parody. It was intended to show how you believe that your union is above scrutiny, no matter how much public damage you cause. Irma used the very quote that I assigned to you in parody, which simply proved my point. Your comment that your labor union is above scrutiny also proved my point.
I am fully aware that you serve your members, but I don't believe that you serve them well. You (union leaders)should be focused on serving the customer, which is the parents, students, and tax payers of D11. Your political agenda supersedes that service, and that is sad.
Thanks for clarifying the record on the PROGRAD funds. The big question that remains is, why were people forced to resign if there was "no wrongdoing?"
I agree with lori that, after all that happened, the very best I can tell from seeing all the data, is that it appears no wrongdoing took place. What did take place was a few questionable practices like lori mentioned and that have been clarified for the future, and then a whole lot of personal issues getting in the way of business being done properly for members. That is why the resignations took place - because the personality/personal issues were so severe that it prevented the board from doing its job well. These two resigned so that the board can move forward with its business, not because either one did anything wrong as far as I can tell. And they were not forced, although I believe they were certainly advised in that direction for the sake of the organization.
I didn't say that we "were above scrutiny." I said I didn't avoid correcting the record because I thought we were above it. I don't think we are above it and as I stated it helps us to look long and hard at what we do.
Thank-you for correcting the assumption that I had said those things in your "parody." I didn't say them and I don't believe them, but then you think that none of us have our own beliefs.
I know that it's hard to believe... or maybe not, because you did it too... people resigned for the good of the whole, because their efforts were no longer effective. Not the big drama story that you were looking for, is it?
anonymous, it seems as if there must still be some issues boiling around if the other 2 board members are being threatened with recall for not resigning as well. And why was the CEA involved? This must be a bigger issue than just a local spat.
Lori, it isn't that I don't think that you don't have your own beliefs, but teachers won't express their beliefs if they go against the formal labor union doctrine. You would be one of the first to enforce "discipline" if anyone from your organization spoke against the union in any way. Drama? No, I couldn't possibly create the type of dramatic scenarios that you were a part of while I was on the board. Can you imagine the protests and "drama" that you would have created if the school board closed East while reformers were on the board? Now you bribe teachers to keep their mouths shut so as not to make "your" school board look bad. Yes, your members are manipulated tremendously by strong arm tactics. That is a fact.
I can relate to a resignation for lack of effectiveness. My question, again, is what the CEA had to do with all of this. This controversy in the union began between Tom and Irma back when Tim Cross was selected to be the Uniserve director. Diane Beatty used her blog to describe the meeting at which this occurred. She talked about you yelling and screaming about how much Tom deserved that spot because of all that he had done to attack reformers. Sounded pretty dramatic to me. I know that there has also been a lot of infighting over the contract that was just ratified. Some of you wanted to push away the 90% parameter and some wanted to stick with it. Something caused everything to come to a head over the past couple of weeks. Plenty of drama, but your group operates in the dark so as to avoid scrutiny, although you feel oligated to scrutinize anyone who possesses a different opinion than yours.
Thanks again to anony and Lori for the clarifications.
Post a Comment
<< Home